IFRS and USGAAP come closer to each other and the dream was to have a single set of the reporting standards until 2015.

Now we know that that dream did not come true and there is still a long way to go. Until then, there are still many companies who need to cope with IFRS reporting as well as USGAAP reporting. Finance people working for those companies know it the best—identification of differences between IFRS and USGAAP and making correct adjustments is simply laborious and demanding work.

Special For You!
Have you already checked out the IFRS Kit ? It’s a full IFRS learning package with more than 40 hours of private video tutorials, more than 140 IFRS case studies solved in Excel, more than 180 pages of handouts and many bonuses included. If you take action today and subscribe to the IFRS Kit, you’ll get it at discount! Click here to check it out!

During my professional career, I came across numerous IFRS and USGAAP reconciliations, adjustments, transformations—just name it. Here, I would like to outline the biggest differences between IFRS and USGAAP, at least those that I consider the biggest and the most challenging to remove. So let’s take a look.

1. Revenue recognition

In my opinion, it is very difficult to simply list all the differences between USGAAP and IFRS related to revenue recognition. The reason is that the guidance on revenue recognition is significantly more extensive in USGAAP than in IFRS.

IFRSs deal with revenue recognition in 2 specific standards: IAS 18 Revenue and IAS 11 Construction Contracts. On the other hand, USGAAP outlines a few concepts and then provides detailed rules for revenue recognition in different industries.

Due to this fact, it is almost impossible to simply list the differences in this area. Instead, thorough analysis of each transaction must be performed prior considering the accounting treatment. However, let me just briefly come up with the main differences for illustration:

Timing of revenue recognition can be different in several cases, especially when price contingencies are involved. Simply speaking, it is possible to recognize revenue with price not fixed yet earlier in IFRS than in USGAAP.

IFRS requires recognizing the revenue when it is probable that economic benefits associated with transaction will flow to the entity and the revenue can be measured reliably. It means that also contingent revenue (not sure about the amount) shall be recognized when 2 conditions are fulfilled.

As opposed, USGAAP sets the criterion of fixed or determinable pricing in order to recognize revenue. Thus, revenue cannot be recognized until the contingency is resolved (so amount must be set). As a result, revenue with contingent or questionable amount can be recognized earlier according to IFRS than according to USGAAP.

Other most common revenue recognition differences involve setting when the transaction with multiple deliverables shall be separated into components, method of revenue allocation to the different components, customer loyalty programs within multiple-element arrangements, construction contracts, value attributed to barter transactions, discounting of revenue (required more broadly in IFRS than USGAAP), and many others.

To reduce those dissimilarities and bring USGAAP and IFRS closer a bit more, FASB (USGAAP setting body) and IASB (IFRS setting body) issued a revised proposal of the new revenue recognition standard. This standard designs main direction for revenue recognition and corrects inconsistencies between USGAAP and IFRS.

However, the new standard on revenue recognition, if adopted, will be effective starting 2015.

2. Financial assets (IAS 39/IFRS 9)

This is another area of fundamental dissimilarities. First of all, the amount of guidance is different. While USGAAP provides extensive guidance throughout various industry-specific standards and pronouncements, IFRS has only 2 standards dealing with financial assets—IFRS 7 for disclosures and IFRS 9 for other issues.

The first thing you do with any financial asset is classification. IFRS 9 classifies financial assets into several categories, while USGAAP classifies financial assets in various pronouncements. Also, IFRS 9 classifies assets basically based on the nature of the instrument, whereas USGAAP reflects legal form in classification.

Please understand that the classification of financial assets is very important—based on classification, you measure these assets and recognize measurement gains or losses to income statement or equity. So, different classification of the same financial asset in USGAAP vs. IFRS can lead to huge variations in amounts recognized in financial statements.

With regard to financial assets, there are great variations in derecognitions—or when you remove the asset from your financial statements. USGAAP assesses whether the control (both effective and legal) over the asset was surrendered. On the other side, IFRS assesses whether there was a qualifying transfer of an asset with risks and rewards passed, and sometimes transfer of control.

As a result, some assets might be derecognized in line with USGAAP, but not in line with IFRS. For example, factoring of receivables with recourse—here, factored receivables can be derecognized according to USGAAP, but not according to IFRS (recourse factoring means that factoring company can transfer receivables back when these went bad and never would be collected; thus risk stays with original owner of receivable and not with factoring company).

There are many more variations with regard to financial assets, for example, treatment of embedded derivatives in hybrid instruments, measurement and reversal of impairment losses, fair value measurement and more. It is just impossible to include them all here in this informative article.

3. Impairment of assets (IAS 36)

There are broad differences in testing of impairment according to IFRS and USGAAP. These differences might lead to assessment whether the asset is impaired or not.

IAS 36 Impairment of Assets prescribes one-step test of impairment. The entity should compare asset’s carrying amount with its recoverable amount (higher of asset’s fair value less cost to sell or asset’s value in use).

As opposed, USGAAP applies 2-step approach: the first step is to compare asset’s carrying amount with its undiscounted cash flows and if carrying amount is lower, then no impairment loss is recognized. In the second step, if the carrying amount is higher than undiscounted cash flows, an impairment loss is calculated as a difference between carrying amount and assets fair value.

So, asset might be impaired per IAS 36, but not per USGAAP.

Also, IFRS uses discounted cash flows in impairment testing (for value in use calculation), whereas USGAAP uses undiscounted cash flows. IFRS sets more precise requirements for types of items to include in cash flows than USGAAP. Therefore, a difference in amount of impairment loss can arise.

4. Intangible assets

One of the biggest differences in this area is that USGAAP does not permit to capitalize internally incurred development costs, while IFRS does allow it—when certain conditions in line with IAS 38 are fulfilled.

Also, there are some differences in impairment testing with regard to intangible assets with indefinite useful life. These differences may result in determination whether there is an impairment loss and in earlier recognition in IFRS.

5. Inventory

IFRS (IAS 2) does not allow LIFO (last-in-first-out) measurement of inventories, while USGAAP does. This is really huge difference for those US companies who use LIFO as their operating results and cash flows might be significantly different according to IFRS than USGAAP.

Final word

Now, you might argue with me that there are bigger differences than those listed above. Well, that’s questionable and arguable, since everybody has his own favourite pick.

During my financial and accounting practice, I considered those 5 as the most laborious and requiring much more work to understand and make appropriate adjustments between IFRS and USGAAP. Just take inventory—those few lines above cost a lot of work in order to revalue year-end inventory from LIFO (per USGAAP) to FIFO or weighted average (by the way, FIFO is easier).

Sure there is much more variations, such as potential differences in the lease classification, variations in employee benefit plans classification and recognition and many other areas.

What I truly believe is that one day, IASB and FASB reach a conclusion and there will be no differences. How much work would be saved for all preparers of the financial statements!

Anyway, if you have any additional questions or troubles, please leave a comment below and I will come back to you.

34 Comments

In my view, too many complicated standards would lead to no where.Despite many standards, complex or otherwise, scam and blunders taking place -there are many examples in the recent past -how and why the mortgage bubble in USA and financial and banking sectors push entire world economic order to a almost grinding halt! IASB and FASB must rather focus on rationalizing and practical standards than such stupidly framed standards for derivatives, impairments, and plant and equipment compartmentalization of the item of assets -how you can separate a pocket of pant and treat a separate item of asset, this is just insane to do and that is what is required in the assets area of the balance sheet!

More complicated standards always create ambiguity and give gateway to the big scandals!, popularly know as window dressing and this not enough we have very complex business environment to work with!

What really needed, in my view, is to frame standards that can bust high moral and integrity and check on dishonesty reducing economic defaults and system break down. Some of the standards should be aligned with the international criminal codes!

Further, global uniform accounting is bit a difficult task as each country has its own cultural, geographical, economic, and political realities and accounting standard setters can not override such realities! In my view, it is going to be a waste! You can not impose USA -directed standards on Asian countries! This a reality and early we understand this better would be for us!

How much is going to really impact if you treat your spare item of asset that you keep in inventory as your separate item of asset rather than expense it off, i would say minimal , even if it is a a billion dollar worth entity! Why the standard setters want all FS preparers, accountant, and the auditors waste their time that produce nothing but chaos! Hope good sense prevail at Accounting standards setters level!

Thank you for sharing your views with us. In fact, I agree with you to the great extent. However, I focus more on what is currently in place – because we, finance people from practice, we must deal with the current situation & standards. I hope this site is some help in this. Cheers!
Silvia, IFRSbox.com

Thank you very much for this detailed lecture, Kindly explain to me How does IFRS treats Assets, Liabilities and owner’s equity as compared to SAS??
Also, what are the similarities between IFRS and SAS, difference between IFRS and SAS

Hello, in every value in use calculation, you need to establish undiscounted cash flow first, and only then discount them (per IAS 36). You can find details about establishing cash flows in the article about IAS 36 here: http://www.ifrsbox.com/ias-36-impairment-assets/

Hello there
I do have a question concerning the second point: “financial assets”. As I am not too familiar with US GAAP I do not quite understand the difference in the classification. What is different under US GAAP?
(Any papers or homepages to recommend? I do have to write a thesis about the difference in treatment of financial assets under ifrs and us gaap…)
Thank you in advance!!
Max